[SGVLUG] This is the droid you've been writing for...

[Matthew Campbell]

Good morning everyone,

So have you loaded the environment on your laptop for tonight's
meeting?  If not we will be doing so, be advised it can be a long
download as it's over 1G.  Do it at work if you can.

Here are the instructions:

http://sgvlug.org/ (half a page down)

See you tonight!

Matt

On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Rae Yip <rae.yip at gmail.com> wrote:
> The key phrase is "Except to the extent required by applicable third
> party licenses". The SDK might not be wholely composed of open source
> software, and even if it were, there are cryptographic keys and
> possibly other IP in firmware and other binaries that Google would
> want to protect.
>
> This doesn't mean that Android isn't mostly open source. The existence
> of projects like CyanogenMod is proof of that.
>
> -Rae.
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Tom Emerson <starman9x at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:37 PM, John E. Kreznar <jek at ininx.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Clause 3.3 there is immediately followed by
>>>
>>>   3.4 Use, reproduction and distribution of components of the SDK
>>>   licensed under an open source software license are governed solely
>>>   by the terms of that open source software license and not this
>>>   License Agreement.
>>>
>>> How can clauses 3.3 and 3.4 be reconciled?  Can we assume from the
>>> project name ("Android Open Source Project") that everything here is
>>> open source?  Then why is the reverse engineering clause in there at
>>> all?
>>
>> lazy lawyers and boilerplate?
>>
>